The Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s GoodCOP 2.0 – The Conference of the People is taking place in Geneva, Switzerland from 17–22 November 2025, running parallel to the WHO’s COP11 negotiations. Unlike the closed-door proceedings of the official FCTC conference, GoodCOP 2.0 brings together consumer advocates, public-health experts, academics, journalists, and policymakers from around the world to promote transparency, evidence-based policymaking, and genuine public participation in global health governance.
This daily recap highlights the key discussions, insights, and moments from each day of GoodCOP 2.0—capturing what happened, why it matters, and how it shapes the broader conversation on tobacco harm reduction, consumer rights, and accountable policymaking.
You can catch all the sessions HERE
OPENING SESSION
Participants: David Williams (USA) and Martin Cullip (UK)
The Day 4 session at WHO FCTC COP11 revolved around harm-reduction strategies related to tobacco control, with Dr. Mark Tyndall advocating for safer nicotine alternatives. Tyndall emphasised that ethical considerations demand providing less harmful options to smokers. David Williams and Martin Cullip reported on tensions within the EU, as several member states oppose Denmark’s prohibitionist proposals affecting vaping and smoke-free products, highlighting diverse public health needs. Criticism was directed at the FCTC’s biased processes, notably the influence of Bloomberg-funded organisations. The session addressed WHO’s Orchid and Dirty Ashtray awards, perceived as politically motivated. Speakers lamented the exclusion of consumers from COP11 discussions, underscoring the irony of taxpayer-funded decisions excluding the affected populace. Legal implications of Denmark’s stance were discussed, warning of adverse health outcomes from extreme measures. The session concluded with a call for accountability and transparency in global policy-making, advocating for consumer involvement in tobacco harm reduction.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE OPENING PLENARY STATEMENTS
Presenter: Jeannie Cameron, Nancy Loucas, Dr. Marina Murphy, Reem Ibrahim
This session analysed over 100 opening statements from countries at COP11, indicating a marked change in attitudes compared to prior meetings. There was a noticeable increase in references to evidence, sovereignty, and particularly, tobacco harm reduction. Jeannie Cameron categorised the countries into three tiers: Tier 1 endorsing harm reduction, Tier 2 signalling evidence-based approaches without full endorsement, and Tier 3 maintaining prohibitionist positions aligned with WHO directives.Standout nations in Tier 1 included
North Macedonia,
New Zealand, and
Gambia, with North Macedonia’s declaration being the most assertive, calling for a clear definition of harm reduction in the FCTC and emphasising scientific integrity.
New Zealand was recognised for directly advocating harm reduction in its tobacco strategy, earning it the “Dirty Ashtray Award” for criticising WHO’s neglect of this approach.Tier 2 countries such as
Tajikistan and
Malaysia promoted credible scientific methods and respect for national contexts without explicitly supporting harm reduction. They cautioned against extreme measures driven by WHO bans, underscoring issues of sovereignty.A significant discussion theme was the conflict between scientific evidence and the prohibitionist agenda of WHO-aligned NGOs, particularly regarding bans on e-cigarettes and innovative tobacco products. Critics highlighted the ideological opposition to nicotine and the potential punishment of the industry over public health concerns.The silence from countries with successful harm reduction policies, like the
UK and
Japan, was noted, potentially due to political pressures from the
EU and WHO. Conversely, several nations—such as
Tunisia,
Australia, and
India—advocated for stricter bans and aligned with WHO strategies.The session also revealed systemic issues within the FCTC framework, citing WHO’s bureaucratic dominance, lack of transparency, and the influence of international NGOs on lower-income nations. Concerns about corruption, enforcement gaps, and the use of bans for political manipulation were raised.The discussion concluded with a call to action for harm-reduction advocates to bolster support for friendly nations, unify messaging, educate various policymakers, and reinforce regional alliances as preparations begin for COP12. Success hinges on enabling governments to withstand external pressures, centring debates around scientific evidence and human rights, and amplifying the voices of consumers in tobacco policy discussions.
PANEL DISCUSSION – PHILANTHRO-COLONIALISM – DO RICH BILLIONAIRES MISTREAT LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES?
Presenter: Chair, Jeffrey Zamora: JGabriel Oke, Clarisse Virgino, Sairah Salim Sartoni
This panel discussed the significant, often detrimental influence of large foreign philanthropies, particularly Bloomberg-funded organisations, on tobacco control policies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Speakers from various regions highlighted that billionaire agendas undermine local needs and public health by obstructing safer nicotine alternatives. In the Philippines, it was revealed that the FDA had received Bloomberg grants, influencing regulatory positions and sparking backlash. Pakistan showcased a more extreme case with funding tied to the opposition of harm reduction, leading to abrupt bans on vaping without legal basis. African delegates echoed these issues, noting that international funding shapes health agendas disregarding local contexts, resulting in ineffective policies and worsening health inequities. The panellists called for LMICs to regain control over their health policies through enhanced local scientific literacy, transparency in funding, and collective resistance to foreign directives, emphasising the right to make health choices without billionaire imposition.
PANEL DISCUSSION – “WHERE’S THE PARADE?” – WHY DO ANTI-SMOKING GROUPS OPPOSE HARM REDUCTION?
Participants: Chair, Reem Ibrahim, Kurt Yeo, Jeff Smith, Bengt Wiberg
This panel addressed the paradox in global tobacco control regarding the rejection of tobacco harm reduction despite a significant decline in youth smoking rates, particularly in the U.S. where it is now around 1.7%. Panellists argued that this decline should be viewed as a public health triumph, largely attributed to Tobacco 21 laws and improved retail practices, not anti-vaping campaigns. They criticised the continued narrative of a “youth epidemic,” suggesting it is driven by political motivations rather than evidence.Contrasts were highlighted across different countries:
– In South Africa, the youth-vaping debate is fuelled by unrepresentative data, overlooking the true crisis of smoking and illicit cigarette sales.
– Conversely, Sweden has successfully reduced youth smoking to below 2.3% by promoting risk-reduced products like snus and vaping, demonstrating effective substitution.
– In the U.S., low-risk products have become mainstream, yet institutions persist in ignoring their impact due to entrenched anti-nicotine sentiments.Panellists identified reasons for institutional rejection of harm reduction strategies, including anti-industry bias, moral panic, and political incentives. They suggested that acknowledging the safety of reduced-risk products for youth experimentation is essential but remains contentious.The session concluded with a call for evidence-based policies that celebrate progress in tobacco control and focus on transitioning current adult smokers to safer alternatives instead of perpetuating fear-based narratives.
PANEL DISCUSSION – THR IN THE AMERICAS: FURY, FAILURE AND THE FDA
Participants: Chair, Jacob Grier, Jeff Smith, Dr. Mark Tyndall, Juan Jose Cirion
This panel provided insights into tobacco harm reduction in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, showcasing their varied yet problematic regulatory landscapes. In the U.S., the FDA’s extreme rejection rate of e-cigarette applications drives consumers to illicit markets. Canada, despite a history of harm reduction in other substances, enforces severe restrictions on nicotine products, worsening the illicit market. Mexico’s ban on safer nicotine products has led to legal confusion and an influx of illicit trade, with courts likely to become involved in disputes over the constitutionality of the ban. Common issues include ineffective prohibition, harsher treatment of safer products compared to cigarettes, and political motives overshadowing scientific evidence. The panel concluded that meaningful change will stem from consumer demand and judicial actions rather than institutional reforms, underscoring the urgent need for evidence-based policies to address the challenges posed by the illicit market.
